How conservatives will attack Elena Kagan

President Obama is still an hour and a half away from formally announcing his choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement, but red flags are already being raised by some on the right.

Expect Republicans to attack Kagan for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus a few years ago when Kagan was dean. This issue was front-and-center during Kagan's confirmation hearing last year for her current post. Then, 31 senators voted against her -- even though the solicitor general enjoys a far shorter term than a Supreme Court justice. The few Republicans who gave her the thumbs up for the executive post -- including the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) John Cornyn (Texas) -- might not be sure votes this time around.

Because Kagan has not served as a judge on the lower courts -- she was nominated by President Clinton but never received a floor vote for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- she has little in the way of a paper trail. While this may be helpful in one respect, some conservatives will use it to argue that she lacks the necessary experience to fill a high court slot. Contrast this with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nearly two decades' worth of decisions from trial and appellate courts. Ed Whelan, a conservative commentator and former Scalia clerk, has asserted that Kagan's lack of "real-world experience," because of her long tenure in academia and in high government posts, perhaps makes her even more insulated from the experiences of most Americans than those who spend years cloistered in the judicial monastery.

Some may also make an issue of the possibility that Kagan may have to step aside from deciding a number of cases because of her involvement in the administration. As solicitor general, Kagan has had a hand in determining the administration's legal positions on a broad range of matters -- from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act to national security issues involving states secrets and the rights of those held in the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to challenge their detentions in court. Because of her role, Kagan would be forced to recuse herself from deciding these cases if they come before the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall was the last person to rise to the court after having served as solicitor general, and he had to recuse himself from some four dozen cases -- although that was at a time when the court heard many more arguments than it does today.

I don't think any of these issues are disqualifying, or should be. Kagan is brilliant, clearly has the intellectual heft to master the job despite a lack of judicial experience, and has a proven ability and willingness to work with people of all political stripes. She passionately opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a matter of policy (and she was right!) but backed off for pragmatic reasons when it became clear that the law school stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. As for recusals, these could cause some problems for the court for the first one or two years of Kagan's tenure, but the president was right not to let that keep him from choosing Kagan. After all, at 50 years old, Kagan, if confirmed, could be a sitting justice for decades to come.

This is yet another pandering nomination by the cynical Obama administration. Sonia Sotomayor was aimed at the Hispanic vote, and Kagan will likely be a stealth pitch for the gay rights community. When does Obama leave office?

puller58 is an a s s. Would you prefer someone as stupid as long d o n g silver who is incaple of opening his mouth. This woman is a moderate. Why do you despise moderates? Or is it the President to whom you are opposed? No matter what he does or says you would find fault. I have no doubt you miss that moron w.

re Puller58
Robert's, Scalia's, and Allito's appointments to the Supreme Court are clearly cases of shameless pandering to straight, white, Catholic males. We can play the "pandering game" forever. Was Thomas's appointment pandering to blacks, conservatives, or idiots?
Puller58's comment is a perfect example of the outraged dying gasps of people still living in the 19th century.

How fascinating that money caused kagan to move away from backing what is right. In our society the supreme god Mammon seems to arbitrarily determine what will happen rather than what should happen. What is right is not quite as right as what is fiscally remuneratively.

Did someone claim at some point that this is a christian nation? What is christian about Mammon? Is he the holy ghost lurking about in the shadows?

"Expect Republicans to attack Kagan for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus a few years ago when Kagan was dean. "

WOW! Second sentence into your essay! That disqualifies her as far as I'm concerned.

I thought you were going to come up with a list of whacky far-right nonsense issues.

But THAT, wow, you're darn right she's unfit to serve the Nation. She stands in the path of the country getting the best and brightest to serve it, then she volunteers herself for that honor? I have a real problem with this woman already.

Some may also make an issue of the possibility that Kagan may have to
step aside from deciding a number of cases because of her involvement
in the administration. As solicitor general, Kagan has had a hand in
determining the administration's legal positions on a broad range of
matters -- from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act
to national security issues involving states secrets and the rights of
those held in the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to challenge their
detentions in court. Because of her role, Kagan would be forced to
recuse herself from deciding these cases if they come before the
Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall was the last person to rise to the
court after having served as solicitor general, and he had to recuse
himself from some four dozen cases -- although that was at a time when
the court heard many more arguments than it does today.

==========NH:
xref: the request here for a nominee who would bring challenges that
would reflect upon "the good behavior" of justices past and present;
xref: you failing to recuse yourself from cases involving whom you went
duck hunting with, and a campaign for who your son worked, Anton.
=============NH//

"She passionately opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a matter of policy (and she was right!) but backed off for pragmatic reasons when it became clear that the law school stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars."

Ah, and she's for sale, too. After all, who cares about principle when there's money to be made?

@davidsawh & @donrus1: I think that Scalia, etc, were more about pandering to big business and trust fund babies. If you look at their history, they've been more interested in protecting wealth than anything else.

The choice of Kagan is already going to be a disappointment to the activist left, because she's not going to be firebrand like Stevens. In fact, she may be the best choice for most conservatives of those Obama interviewed. If they fight her and win, the 'bench' is considerably more liberal. So this won't be a case of pushing out the ideologue to get the moderate. I'm sure Obama's privately pointed this out to the GOP leadership.

Unless the vetting process missed something big, this will be a slam dunk. Expect some perfunctory grousing about her ban on military recruiters at Harvard, but they won't take it much further. After all Diane Wood will be waiting in the wings......

The Republicans are so transparently oppositional that if Obama nominated Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court they'd object saying he was soft on crime--all that hanging around with criminals, tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners. Unbelievable.

It didn't matter who Obama nominated. Many in the GOP were going to trash the nomination. We are in a situation right now where Republicans are even eating their own, pushing very conservative senators out because of one or two votes they don't agree with.

Even in regard to things which most people agree are good for the nation, the GOP is the party of "NO!" in a big way.

He sees another academic pin head in his own image. BO sees someone who has never had a real, non-political job in her adult life just like Barry the I. He sees someone totally divorced from the reality of America and the lives of ordinary Americans. Barry sees someone more comfortable among the ruling, leftist aristocrats of Amerika then with Americans. He sees someone who has no real, in the trenches, legal experience. Barry, like all liberals loves the sound of one hand clapping and loves a diversity of views as long as they are his views.

In short he sees a far left, female, gay, mirror image of himself. And Barry is always looking in the mirror.

She has no experience as a Judge and views the U S Constitution as an inconveniece to be gotten around rather than followed. Wow, She is the WHite female version of Obama, no wonder he chose her. This is a tactical move to distract the National Electorate from a failed presidencey. Obama is hoping his nominee will be filibustered, then it will get his failed Presidency and falling popularity off the front page for the summer. He purposely chose the one nominee who is so controversial that when he nominated her to the applellate court, his our Senate couldn't muster enough support to get her a confirmation hearing scheduled much less a vote.

My guess is he is floating this nominee knowing she will be the "sacrificial lamb" so that the next person he nominates after she is rejected will have an easier time getting confirmed. This is nothing more than typical Obamunism progaganda, get everyone all upset about one thing while you slip 10 more things through the back door and get people to stop talking about how completely inept your Presidency is.

Close ties to the administration, lack of record on relevant issues, and no time on the bench.

Sounds just like the confirmation hearings of Harriet Miers 5 years ago.

Posted by: HokiePokie
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-

Excellent point Hokie, I was thinking that myself. I was also thinking that 90% of the opinion journalists who were working 5 years ago are doing Lexis-Nexis database searches to find out what specific arguments they used to vilify Miers five years ago.

Because it might be embarrassing for them to get caught out passionately defending the very same things they used to trash Miers with.

So they need to come up with new arguments or some sort of spurious argument as to why this is different this time. Alternatively, they could just assign junior commentators to defend who who weren't active during the Miers fight.

The Republicans are so transparently oppositional that if Obama nominated Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court they'd object saying he was soft on crime--all that hanging around with criminals, tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners. Unbelievable_____________________

The GOP would hate JAYSUS because he was all for SOCIAL JUSTICE, redistribution of wealth, against the death penalty and more.

And as we know ONLY REPUBLICANS can judge. The rest of us can feel free to go to hell in a handbasket

Uh, Puller58, to answer your question: not any time soon. I know that you would prefer someone idiotic and incompetent, but, sadly, you're stuck with someone brilliant and capable until 2016. also, Kagan will and should be confirmed. More bad news that's really good news.

I think liberals are getting a little confused here. Republicans do not block judges. The Democrats do. She might be asked some questions, but she will be confirmed. There will be no filibuster. Republicans don't do that.

Bush was not as stupid as liberals made him out to be, as Obama is continuing some of the Bush programs. As such, Obama is not as smart as liberals made him out to be, as he is doing some really damaging things to this country.

Some one with no judicial experience fits right in with some one with no executive experience.

"I think liberals are getting a little confused here. Republicans do not block judges. The Democrats do. She might be asked some questions, but she will be confirmed. There will be no filibuster. Republicans don't do that."

No, all they do is block nominations from ever coming up. Just ask Appeals Court Judge Elena Kagan.

gkassees wrote:
He purposely chose the one nominee who is so controversial that when he nominated her to the applellate court, his our Senate couldn't muster enough support to get her a confirmation hearing scheduled much less a vote.
---------------------------------------------
gkassees you're just wrong here. You are the only person I have heard call this nominee "controversial". Most feel she was the safe choice. And for the record, Obama didn't nominate her to the appellate court. CLINTON nominated her and it was the REPUBLICAN senate who refused to hold a hearing on her nomination.

I prefer having someone with little to no judicial experience on the court. With so many lawyers in Congress, we could use a real person on the Supreme Court.

Republicans might want to paint her as lacking real world judicial experience, but seems to me someone who as an administrator or department chief -- who has had to come up with practical solutions to real world challenges -- actually could make a pretty damn good Supreme Court justice.

One cannot help but snort with derision and comic guffaw when reading the puerile commentary of JoeDBrown. ",,,ruling, leftist aristocrats of Amerika"? he oinks. Think about that for a minute. Who is it that actually is more representative of the true ruling aristocracy in America, the corporate elites who own our political system? What party, what ideology reflexively use the bumper sticker slogan of Economic Freedom to oppose any sort of policy that would regulate the excesses by these corporate criminals and Wall Street hustlers?

Who is it that opposes the hard won worker's rights over the past century? What ideology is it that used lame rationales like states' rights to oppose anti-slavery laws and opposition to quotas to oppose giving minorities the same opportunities to get a higher education as whites? Which political party has traditionally allied itself with the powerful, the wealthy, the advantaged who really are the aristocrats in our society?

I will tell you one thing: It wasn't the right wing that was out there on the front lines fighting for the rights of workers and the disenfranchised and the poor and the elderly. If they had their way, America would still be segregated, still be largely rural and poor and children could still be made to labor.

No way Joe! The ruling aristocrats today are the rotten, corrupt capitalists on Wall Street and within the giant corporations who depend on nudniks like you to justify their excessive, opulent lifestyles. Consider your corny hoggish hero--Rush Limbaugh. Now there is a true aristocrat. He toils not and rakes in millions every year for doing nothing but shout vulgar nonsense and corporate apologia into his truly goldent aristocratic microphone.

This is yet another pandering nomination by the cynical Obama administration. Sonia Sotomayor was aimed at the Hispanic vote, and Kagan will likely be a stealth pitch for the gay rights community. When does Obama leave office?
**************************************
She is no more aimed at tha gay rights community than Scalia was aimed at the NRA crowd. Obama will leave office in Jan 2017.

HokiePokie wrote: "Close ties to the administration, lack of record on relevant issues, and no time on the bench.
Sounds just like the confirmation hearings of Harriet Miers 5 years ago."

More like HocusPocus. To compare Elena Kagan to Harriet Miers is essentially like saying Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Obama - both idiotic statements. Say what you want about her views: Elena Kagan is one of the finest legal minds in the country with a proven record of genuine accomplishment - slam Harvard all you want, but you don't get to be dean of its law school by being an incompetent underachiever. Harriet Miers was a "W" nominee - a yokel doofus from Texas that was clearly sub-par. George Will was brutally honest about her: he wrote that, if the top 100 legal scholars each composed their list of the 100 most qualified persons for the Supreme Court, Harriet Myers would not have been selected to a SINGLE ONE of those 10,000 slots. If you think that could be said of Elena Kagan, think again. In fact, we could cut it to the ten top picks of the ten top legal scholars, and Kagan would probably appear on nearly all of them.

The only attack I saw in your column was yours. So no one is allowed to question someone's record anymore?

What ever happened to judging AFTER the first arguement has been made. Talk about bias. You couldn't wait to attack even before anyone said word one. And that makes you different than what you accuse the Republicans of being how???

thelaw1 wrote: "Bush was not as stupid as liberals made him out to be, as Obama is continuing some of the Bush programs. As such, Obama is not as smart as liberals made him out to be, as he is doing some really damaging things to this country.Some one with no judicial experience fits right in with some one with no executive experience."

Give it a rest already. Maybe Bush is not as stupid as that, but by my estimation, he is pretty darn close, and the libs consider his REALLY, REALLY stupid. If you want to attack Obama for appointing someone with no judicial experience, try Harriet Miers - Bush's "trust me" choice who got BORKED by his OWN PARTY. As for experience, why does everyone always give Bush a pass: he obviously entered the White House without nary a clue as to what lay in store for him. HE CLEARLY WAS NOT QUALIFIED OR COMPETENT (so to say he was not ready is really unnecessary). Take your constant bashing of Obama and stick it in your ear. He is SOOOOOO much better than Bush, it is almost unbelievable.

Could it be that the American people are questioning picking a person of so little judicial experience to sit on the highest court of the land? Apart from being an effete, pseudo-intellectual law school dean (albeit Obama's alma matter), what real qualifications does she bring to the table? Liberal, check. Lesbian, check. Pseudo-intellect, check. Scholarship, ah this isn't necessary. Judicial record, who are you kidding? Evidence of intellectual honesty and deliberation, not a chance.

I guess if the American people could elect a snot-nosed, empty shirt to be president, he is well within his bounds to appoint an equally inappropriate pick to the Supreme Court.

The problem is the present Regime in the W.H. has 8 years of experience in the private sector. They are mostly academia. Book smarts does not work on the job. Gets people killed during combat due to their having to study the situation too long while bullets are flying. This is payback to the Gays&Lesbians and Pedophile generation. She is alleged to be a Lesbian and so far I can find no evidence to support that allegation nor to disprove it. Where is her real dossier? Is it behind lock and keys like BO's is? Just wondering.
Vote Independent. Throw all the trash out of DC along with the welfare city.

The problem is the present Regime in the W.H. has 8 years of experience in the private sector. They are mostly academia. Book smarts does not work on the job. Gets people killed during combat due to their having to study the situation too long while bullets are flying. This is payback to the Gays&Lesbians and Pedophile generation. She is alleged to be a Lesbian and so far I can find no evidence to support that allegation nor to disprove it. Where is her real dossier? Is it behind lock and keys like BO's is? Just wondering.
Vote Independent. Throw all the trash out of DC along with the welfare city.

There is nothing conservatives don't like. Pandering? Do Robert, Alito and Thomas ring a bell? I don't get angry anymore. I just shake my head and chuckle. The conservative mantra, al la Prof. Wagstaff: "Whatever it is, I'm against it".

This woman has protected herself from relationships by staying single, protected herself from expressing her opinions by never getting herself appointed a judge in any lower courts, and continually protected herself from the world with her 'I'm so brilliant' act.

A failure in some very important ways.

I want a judge who has built successful loving relationships, stood up and gotten counted for their ideas, and had the humility to accept all the risks that go with that kind of life.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is delusional. A Republican president would never nominate anyone like Elena Kagan, for anything. They may all sit in the same room, wear the same clothes and have the same haircut, but that's where the similarity ends.

ZZim: she's so qualified that she's already being touted as the intellectual equivalent of Roberts, Alito and Scalia. She can easily hold her own during a conference with that crowd. She is the Solicitor General, confirmed by Congress. Her job is to argue all the cases in the Supreme Court. by all accounts she does that very well. Meiers was a staff attorney in the White House, and she was barely qualified to be that, and no one suspected her of ever being a constitutional scholar. She would have had trouble finding the Supreme Court if pointed in the right direction from the White House.

If all the opposition has is that she's an intellectual, academic, legal giant, well, that's not quite an attack, is it?

She had a fiduciary duty to Harvard not to sacrifice federal funds, so she had to back down. And her stand on the recruiters was all about making sure the best and the brightest were eligible to serve. And those Harvard folks? plenty smart enough to join the service and find the local recruiting office without having them on campus.

Posted by: Puller58: "This is yet another pandering nomination by the cynical Obama administration. Sonia Sotomayor was aimed at the Hispanic vote, and Kagan will likely be a stealth pitch for the gay rights community."

.

.

.

Quite a nice distinction from the pandering white male capitalist right wing colonialists of Alito and Roberts, don't'cha think? I mean, how's that capitaly-dollary thing working for you now?

The necon tea party whacky right wing GOP would object if Obama nominated the Pope. And you could bet the mortgage they'd have a few problems with Pope:
1. molesting helpless little boys
2. actively protecting offending pediphile priests
3. actively promoting a cover-up of the scandel as if they'd just watched "All the Presidents Men"
4. engage the spin/lie/deceive machine used daily by Republicans.
5. try to blame the little boys for causing the problem by wearing sexy church garb.
6. try to blame the nedia
7. try to blame liberals
8. try to blame illegal immigrants

I am not troubled by Kagan's lack of experience on the bench. I am a bit disappointed, however, that her principles regarding "don't ask, don't tell" became "pragmatic" when she "realized the law school...stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars." Either one believes passionately in a principle or one doesn't. I would not have chosen to bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School if it were my decision to make, but since she made it "on principle" she should have held to her principles.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is delusional. A Republican president would never nominate anyone like Elena Kagan, for anything. They may all sit in the same room, wear the same clothes and have the same haircut, but that's where the similarity ends.

Posted by: RossOdom

---------------------------------

You forgot the mandatory flag lapel pin which, if not worn, renders the person unpatriotic! :-D

The Republican Party is in such a knee-jerk mode, that they will trash anyone Obama proposes, no matter how qualified. They also know that this is the best nominee that they are going to get, from their perspective. so they will trash her, then put her on the bench. It's all about political grandstanding in an election year, and has nothing to do with whether she is qualified or not. That's what politics has become in this nation, with few politicians who are actually principled enough to stand up and just do what's right.

I think that is in bad taste for a President to appoint personal friends to the bench. There are thousands of Judges that have experience that he should look at. I think it is highly irregular to appoint your former law professor...what is next... Obama's kindergarten teacher?

The Republicans won't find anything to use to vote against her other than voting NO on everything presented by the President. Why don't they show some of the Americanism they spout and just approve her instead of wasting many hours looking for something to be against. She will be easily confirmed so let's get on to the business of running rather than ruining the country.

Consider me underwhelmed. Kagan's elevation to serve on the SCOTUS -- even though she has never served as a judge even in small claims court -- appears to be a slap in the face to many hard-working judges who should have been more seriously considered.

So why is someone underqualified being appointed to the SCOTUS? Kagan appears to be another diversity pick, and the irony here is that diversity picks are supposed to represent the viewpoints of a wider swath of Americans. I guess she represents that underserved portion of the population: Ivy League law school deans.

You have it backwards. It's the policy that keeps the gays/lesbians out of the US military that is the real barrier to getting the best and brightest.

Barring military recruiters from the Harvard campus doesn't prevent any Harvard student from signing up for the military.

The Chairman JCS believes the discriminatory policy should be dropped and it should be.

You're on the wrong side of the issue and in the wrong century.

Posted by: James10

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

James, I’m not on any side of the gays-in-the-military issue. It’s not important to me. Situations like this change as society changes. Society changes as generations change. This policy is on the way out, it’s as natural and inevitable as the cycle of birth-life-military service-retirement and death.

What IS important to me is that Ms. Kagan appears to feel that national security is something she can play political games with.

I find that inexcusable.

By the way – regarding the weak argument that - “Barring military recruiters from the Harvard campus doesn't prevent any Harvard student from signing up for the military.” - what would you say if someone banned college recruiters for majority-white colleges from all majority-minority high schools? In that case, would you assert that “barring college recruiters from majority-minority high schools doesn't prevent any minority student from going to college.”

Don't get all riled up! Kagan is not going to make it - for all the reasons she dind't make it before :-)
Having a different benefactor doesn't change the core principles.
She doesn't like the military and she supports gays. Don't know where she stands on guns but I have an idea.
But the main reason she will fail is she has not had any real contact with the real world - just the world as she would like it to be.
Her past is as vaporous as barry's! :-)

Maybe Bush is not as stupid as that, but by my estimation, he is pretty darn close, and the libs consider his REALLY, REALLY stupid. If you want to attack Obama for appointing someone with no judicial experience, try Harriet Miers - Bush's "trust me" choice who got BORKED by his OWN PARTY. … Take your constant bashing of Obama and stick it in your ear. He is SOOOOOO much better than Bush, it is almost unbelievable.

Posted by: marecek

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hey uh, perhaps you didn’t notice that it was a trick. People went insane for weeks at Miers (someone clearly unqualified) and then when Bush swapped her out for the supremely qualified solidly conservative John Roberts … nobody had anything left to say.

Pretty slick if you ask me. I think you’re still mis-underestimating the man – even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Still can’t admit you guys got played.

harriet meyers did not attend any confirmation hearings for her nomination because she withdrew under pressure from most senators, left and right, not to pursue the nomination for many reasons. she likewise, didn't attend when supoened to testify on wiretapping, arm-twisting Ashcroft and torture documents, hum maybe she was pretty smart???????

ZZim: banning recruiters from Harvard does not "play with national security" - give me a break. those harvard types can find the recruiting office in Cambridge - they probably have to walk by it to get to any of the downtown pubs. your high school hypo is absurd by comparison.

Judicial experience is almost completely irrelevant for the Supreme Court. The cases are researched and argued to death. The job of the judges is the same academic exercise as that engaged in by the average law professor every day in class. A law school dean is a perfect candidate, and by all accounts, she is welcomed by the conservatives on the faculty. A Solicitor General is even more qualified. Her job is to represent the U.S. to the Supreme Court. That's more relevant experience even than being a federal appellate judge.

According to at least some conservatives (Gerson - I can't believe I am citing him, but there it is) she's actually quite moderate in her views.

She had a fiduciary duty to Harvard not to sacrifice federal funds, so she had to back down. And her stand on the recruiters was all about making sure the best and the brightest were eligible to serve. And those Harvard folks? plenty smart enough to join the service and find the local recruiting office without having them on campus.

Posted by: JoeT1 |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

So what you’re really saying is that it was just some harmless Leftist posturing by academia with zero real-world impact?

I agree. However, it’s the wrong posture. People who take that posture should be criticized, vilified, and ostracized. They deserved to lose their case (as they did).

Supports gays???
I can't believe she'll be able to keep God from setting her head on fire in the hearings long enough to answer a question...oh, but no questions are necessary since she supports gays...

ZZim: banning recruiters from Harvard does not "play with national security" - give me a break.

Posted by: JoeT1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Good point. Like I said in my previous post, it was just harmless Leftist posturing by academia with zero real-world impact.

Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that this is an area (national security) where one should NOT engage in posturing, even harmless posturing with zero real-world impact. Many people, especially young people (like college students) are impressionable. They might get the mistaken impression that the military’s primary function is as a social-engineering tool, rather than the tool by which we protect our most important freedoms. Those freedoms are sacred, and the tools required to obtain and keep them require public respect.

Regardless about how you feel about the rules laid down for the military to abide by, attacking the military for President Clinton’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy is the wrong thing to do - even if it’s a harmless attack. Attacking the military in public sends the wrong message here.

"She passionately opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a matter of policy (and she was right!) but backed off for pragmatic reasons when it became clear that the law school stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars."

Ah, and she's for sale, too. After all, who cares about principle when there's money to be made?

Posted by: ZZim
--------------------------
No she put the good of the school, what the federal money does for the students and the law above her own personal views. Wish the current justices could do that.

I always love coming to this forum. No matter what other liberal or conservative columnists, pundits or scholars say elsewhere, you're sure to get an earful about how terrible/marvelous someone is, based, it seems, solely on their supposed political party membership.

While I'm sure that Ms. Rodriguez made some fine points, I don't need to read her piece to know what conservatives will do. They will:
1) Take an insignificant error from Ms. Kagan's career and, by blatant lying, inflate it to epic proportions.
and
2) Keep repeating the lie no matter how thoroughly it is debunked.

Conservatives want another conservative on the court but they're not getting one this time. So they'll just keep acting like spoiled children. It's all they know how to do.

I am surprised at you. No, DADT is what keeps the brightest and best out, well maybe not all of them, but a chunk of them. If Harvard grads wish to enter the military, they can do so at their local recruiter. I can see you expressed your outrage before even understanding Ms. Kagan's reasons for barring recruiters from the campus. The reason? The fact that they discriminate against the GLBT community was incongruous with Harvard's no discrimination policy. I can't blame her for that. Why not try and understand the reasons first?

Sotomayor was at least a Judge! A Judge to be a Judge on the Supreme Court. Is that partisan? Is that too much to ask? Pick someone who has actual judicial experience? Anyone! This is just a sign that the President cannot pick a nominee without political baggage that suits his leftist views so he had to pick someone like himself hidden behind "a lack of record."
Even if you disagree politically you can agree that such an important nominee should actually be a lower court Judge.

Do Not feel sad Conservatives, President Obama does not plan to seek a third term of office, since by then its unlikely there will be much left to be done after he has achieved all the Centers goals for the country. He already achieved in less than 2 years a goal that took between 70+ years of effort to achieve.

The majority of Justices should be judges, but at least one should be a very qualified person from elsewhere in the legal establishment. Unless you think Judges have a lock on all legal wisdom. The idea that the Dean of Harvard Law School is not qualified will not even fly with the Conservative Base.

I cannot agree with her on abortion. Her stance against "Don't ask, don't tell" is admirable, but that does not make up for being okay with aborting 1,500,000 innocent lives per year.

Abortion is mass murder on a scale that even the Nazi's would have hard-pressed to keep up with during their era. Women's rights entail birth control and choosing their partners, but at some point, rights must give way to responsibilities. A healthy four-month old infant only requires being carried another 4 or 5 months, and to terminate its life is selfish and evil.

Today any Republican president that tried to nominate a Goldman Sach's lawyer would endure a firestorm of criticism from the Washington Post. Therefore, I find it ironic that a Democratic president nominated a Goldman Sach's lawyer, Elena Kagan. This being said, the real story is the the Washington Post can run story after story on the nomination and fail to mention this little detail. And it wants us to think that it is an honest news organization.

All those opposing Kagan must be right: Kagan, the academic, the public official, has no "real life experience" to allow her to be in touch with the rest of us. Hmmm. Wasn't the Republican opposition's problem with Sotomayor that her rich real life experiences created in her a sense of empathy? You can't have it both ways unless you are amnesiacs.
Those knee-jerks who oppose anything that President Obama proposes are tying themselves in knots. If you are too dense to notice, Kagan is to the left of center, but doesn't diverges from the center in the way that Alito and Roberts do. Forget about Scalia. At last we'll have a true heir to Thurgood Marshall on the bench instead of the cipher who succeeded him at the time.

Liberals started the politicization of SC judges way back with the smearing of Judge Bork and Judge Thomas. Pay backs are an MFer. Please don't expect a pass for the far left nominee.

Posted by: gorams1 | May 10, 2010 9:16 AM
************************

We don't. Your questioners' stupidity will be apparent for all to see during the hearings and I welcome the opportunity for Sessions et. al. to have their lunch handed to them. Kagan's smart and tough. Let me remind you that the only nominees who ever fold and go home whining are conservative losers.

"Expect Republicans to attack Kagan for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus a few years ago when Kagan was dean."
=========================================

What is amazing is that liberals feel it is OK for her to do this. How can someone who has a clear disrespect for our Govenment and Military be expected to uphold our Consitution. What if her political beliefs conflict with the law? I guess we will soon see what happens, but I do hope the committee grills her on that one! It is totally uncalled for!

Suck it up tea baggers. Your inferior culture is being eradicated from the history books. Soon you will be whispered about as stories to scare school children.

Posted by: kschur1

=========================================

WOW, this is an AMAZING post. Did you write this all by yourself, or did your Mommy and Daddy help you. What is funny is that you think the tea party movement is large and established enough to warrent having their own Culture, similar to the US or coutries in Europe! And being erradicated from history books just after they won in Utah? Seems interesting. Maybe the tea party movement will create a ligitamate third party and break our two party system. Imagine that! Republicans would be considered moderates, while liberals would still be considered those silly bleeding hearts from the left! LOL!!

I am surprised at you. No, DADT is what keeps the brightest and best out, well maybe not all of them, but a chunk of them. If Harvard grads wish to enter the military, they can do so at their local recruiter. I can see you expressed your outrage before even understanding Ms. Kagan's reasons for barring recruiters from the campus. The reason? The fact that they discriminate against the GLBT community was incongruous with Harvard's no discrimination policy. I can't blame her for that. Why not try and understand the reasons first?

Posted by: jromaniello
==========================
1. By your logic, there is nothing to bar homosexuals from entering military service at the local recruiting station (and 100s of thousands of them have done since Vietnam), just like your theoretical Harvard grad with no military training or education could - and find himself a limited duty officer at best.

2. The ban never exited over gays. The schools that had ROTC bans put them in place in the Vietnam era when military service was equated to baby-killing. Gay rights were only an excuse that came up in the 90s after Congress put DADT in place - to perpetuate existing bans.

3. The military needs talent, and arguably banning everyone from the opportunity to learn how to serve at the best and most elite general and high tech schools - hurts America's readiness more than losing a smattering of gays who want to be open vs. discrete and serve. In the countries that allow gays to serve, they aren't exactly pounding down the doors with a plethora of new talent hoping to serve their nation's defense.

"She passionately opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a matter of policy (and she was right!) but backed off for pragmatic reasons when it became clear that the law school stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars."

Ah, and she's for sale, too. After all, who cares about principle when there's money to be made?

Posted by: ZZim
--------------------------
No she put the good of the school, what the federal money does for the students and the law above her own personal views. Wish the current justices could do that.

Posted by: schnauzer21

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-

“Don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is also a principle. So one might say that, for expedience sake, she decided to back off from her “moral” stand and adopt a more practical approach.

I agree that she made the right decision when she backed down. I also think that the Supreme Court was right to force her to make the right decision. Sometime people have to be forced to do what’s right.

I am surprised at you. No, DADT is what keeps the brightest and best out, well maybe not all of them, but a chunk of them. If Harvard grads wish to enter the military, they can do so at their local recruiter. I can see you expressed your outrage before even understanding Ms. Kagan's reasons for barring recruiters from the campus. The reason? The fact that they discriminate against the GLBT community was incongruous with Harvard's no discrimination policy. I can't blame her for that. Why not try and understand the reasons first?

Posted by: jromaniello

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-

J, I’m aware that President Clinton’s DADT policy keeps otherwise qualified individuals from serving in the military. I also understand that Ms. Kagan felt that the rules of her private, non-profit, tax-dollar-consuming institution should be paramount over the laws of the United States government because they agreed with her own personal ethics.

I also think it’s obvious that she was wrong. In hindsight, perhaps she does too.

I re-read my posts, and I detect no “outrage”. I’m not really very emotional about this issue because (A) it appears to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of right and wrong and (B) I don’t really care one way or another about DADT (I’m neither for nor against). I apologize if I erroneously communicated “outrage” in my posts, it wasn’t intentional.

The choice of Kagan is already going to be a disappointment to the activist left, because she's not going to be firebrand like Stevens. In fact, she may be the best choice for most conservatives of those Obama interviewed.
Posted by: problematic | May 10, 2010 9:17 AM

===========================================

I agree that she is certainly one of the least controversial names on the short list. Unless something pops up soon, I don't see a lot of opposition coming her way since she is, in the GOP's view, the best of a list of bad choices.

Barring military recruiters from the Harvard campus doesn't prevent any Harvard student from signing up for the military.

==========================================

I remember now-Senator Jim Webb wrote an op-ed piece for the Post a few years ago that the dirty little secret is the the military couldn't care less about Harvard and being barred. Few grads want to be officers and no one wants the military as a career.

The recruiters would rather spend their time at state schools such as George Mason and Virginia Tech.

What is it with the bashing of academics?
Talking of real world experience we have had some real world experts in the form of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and most of the crew around Bush the lesser. They did not seem to understand much about the world except how to do favors for their friends in industry.
Joe the plumber has "world" experience, I guess he should be nominated to the Supreme Court. Most judges don't have any more "world" experience than academics and often are less well versed on the intricacies of the law. The bashing of Obama as an academic is truly non-sensical. He has been an academic, a community organizer and a Senator. And has shown to have a brain. That is more than can be said for any luminary in the GOP.

I remember now-Senator Jim Webb wrote an op-ed piece for the Post a few years ago that the dirty little secret is the the military couldn't care less about Harvard and being barred. Few grads want to be officers and no one wants the military as a career.

Posted by: bbface21

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I saw that article. Nevertheless, although the anti-military posturing of the Harvard faculty had little or no real-world impact, they were still wrong to do so. It sets a bad example and a bad precedent. If Harvard’s faculty had got away with their posturing, then more relevant schools might have followed suite.

So I think it was good that both sides were willing to take it to the courts and have the principle settled once and for all. This way, the proper precedent has been set. One that Ms. Kagan will surely support, given how Liberals have suddenly acquired a distaste for judicial activism.

He has been an academic, a community organizer and a Senator. And has shown to have a brain. That is more than can be said for any luminary in the GOP.

Posted by: serban1 | May 10, 2010 4:37 PM |

=========================================

The problem with Obama is not that he's smart, but he (and by extension academics) has never been in charge of anything. Take a look at our better Presidents: Teddy Roosevelt was Commissioner of the NYPD, Clinton and Regan were governors, and Eisenhower commanded armies. They were better because of the wealth of executive experience and the lessons learned from their decisions.

I know one reason why Obama is floundering right now: He's never ran a city, commanded a platoon or even been in charge of a hot dog stand.

What we do care about is why America has ZERO Atheist or Protestant Justices and why it has ZERO Justices from Law Schools in the West, even though US News & World Report has half of the top ten law schools here in the West.

They say you can judge a person by the quality of his enemies. If that be the case, then my decision to vote for President Barrack Obama in 2008 continues to be validated, almost on an hour by hour basis. The non stop invective and vitriol, leveled against President Obama from the extreme Right wing in this country tells us all we need to know about these unlettered and vicious individuals.

As someone who remembers the way that the Contract on America GOP did everything it possibly could to undermine and destroy Bill Clinton during his 8 years in office, I can't say I'm surprised. Those of you who complain about Bush bashing need to take a history refresher course and try to recollect things before 2001.

And that Kagan is now the recipient of that non stop ugly nastiness is also no surprise. But in my mind that's all I need to know about her. She has my 100% support.

BTW, to the president, covering up for a couple fellow liberal travelers is just alright by him.

This Kagen issue will be dismissed amid the cries of sexism, hatred, and racism. I am not sure why racism will be claimed, but most issues that liberals disagree about, they start calling the messenger of the message they cannot argue with, a racist. So I figure that anyone who points out problems with Kagen will be called the same three things that always used. It speaks poorly of her, that she had precedent, solid evidence, and a path for an equitable resolution, but she chose to depart from the norm and exonerate the fellow travelers who plagiarized, Tribe and Ogletree.

When people start complaining that she has no judicial experience, keep in mind that before John Roberts, William Renquist was the Right's favorite chief justice,,, and he had no judicial experience yet became a great Supreme Court Justice and the Chief,,

so take that, all who claim she is insufficent due to lack of being on the bench,,,,

now bring on the next hypocrit

AND,,,, Look at her resume,,, she is very qualified to be a Supreme Court justice,

to those who say no, I ask this, what should their educational and professional pedigree look like if hers is not sufficient,,,

of course, no one they could suggest would look any better under that criteria, thus the hunt for the smoking gun of what her legal opinions might be and if differenct than mine,, VOTE NO

She has the complete mental capacity, education and legal training to rise to the top court in the land,,,

Beyond that,, pray that she keeps an open mind, a keen intellect and a devotion to understanding and applying the US Constitution,,

If she can do that, she will be all we could have asked for,,,,,,,, and she might become a great justice,,,

Gorams1: "Liberals started the politicization of SC judges way back with the smearing of Judge Bork and Judge Thomas. Pay backs are an MFer. Please don't expect a pass for the far left nominee."

Two history lessons:
Back in the Watergate era, Nixon had asked Attorney General Elliot Richardson, the Att. Gen., to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Cox had demanded access to Nixon's secret tapes. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon asked the Deputy AG, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox, and Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. However, Robert Bork, Solicitor General of the United States, did fire Cox. Because of this, I believe it is unfair to call what happened to Bork a smearing. Cox had this to say after his firing - "whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people to decide." Bork had shown where his first loyalty was, and it wasn't to We the People.

Re Clarence Thomas: this wikipedia article mentions that 4 Clarence Thomas staffers testified that Hill had been upset at alleged sexual harassment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination. The article also says that 2 other staffers supported Hill to Senate staffers but decided not to testify. The Wikipedia article goes on "According to Mayer and Abramson, soon after Thomas was sworn in, three reporters for The Washington Post “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.”[45] These reporters had eyewitness testimony and video rental records showing Thomas’ interest in and use of pornography.[46]."" Thomas was supported by other staffers, and was confirmed by a 52-48 vote, including by 11 Democrats. The fact that 6 former staffers supported Anita Hill's story, plus evidence of video store rentals, leads me to believe that her claims were not ridiculous. Thus this was not a smearing.

Ivory tower elites have so much in common with the rest of us. I'd rather he'd picked a wino off the street.
____________________________

No doubt FLvet has much, MUCH more in common with a wino off the street than with Kagan, whence the disdain for her. Perhaps FLvet could recommend a suitable wino buddy or two and knows the very gutters where such judicial standouts can be found . . .

For the adults in the room: These annoying harangues about elitism and the evils of the dreaded ivory tower are total garbage. It would be sensible to assert, for example, that many law schools, not just the Ivies, produce many very fine jurists who are worthy of sitting on SCOTUS, and that an Ivy-League law degree should not be a requirement for a SCOTUS nomination. Duh.

But let's not assume that we don't want the very brightest and most accomplished SCOTUS justices. Is Kagan among them? As former dean of Harvard Law, she is surely very bright indeed. Is that enough? Good question! So let the REAL debate begin. But let those debating be people with functioning neurons!

Apparently FLvet thinks that mediocrity is some kind of virtue . . . not much evidence of functioning neurons there!

Those two did alright for themselves, and for the court. I don't want a "normal" person serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. Because the issues before the court are complicated, wide-ranging, have equally wide-ranging effects, I want a person of above average, or possibly, elite intelligence and analytical ability.

I don't want a "normal" person serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. Because the issues before the court are complicated, wide-ranging, have equally wide-ranging effects, I want a person of above average, or possibly, elite intelligence and analytical ability.

Posted by: mason08 | May 10, 2010 8:43 PM

=========================================

I agree with your point, but many people deeply resent the implication that someone who attended an Ivy-League school is assumed to be above average (or elite) by definition and that someone who attended a state school has an inferior intellect.

I don't want a "normal" person serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. Because the issues before the court are complicated, wide-ranging, have equally wide-ranging effects, I want a person of above average, or possibly, elite intelligence and analytical ability.

Posted by: mason08 | May 10, 2010 8:43 PM

=========================================

I agree with your point, but many people deeply resent the implication that someone who attended an Ivy-League school is assumed to be above average (or elite) by definition and that someone who attended a state school has an inferior intellect.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Look, get over the inferiority complex, you can be pretty sure that someone graduating at the top of her class at Harvard has an above average inntellect. Not that a state school graduate is stupid, but if they would have had the grads and opportunity they would have gone to Harvard if they could.

The BS "elitsis" mantra sounds like the fork lift driver despising his foreman. Yes, maybe the forman is not as pragmatic as the fork lift driver, but he may be better suited for the foremans position.

The real "elitists" are the ones that want to financially dominate the masses and think they are above the law. Why are you not as angry and frustrated at them?

Homophobia is intolerance which brings no benefit. President Obama is doing the correct thing by nominating Kagan to the Supreme Court because she belives in equality for LGBT people and not oppression against LGBT people. She knows that the intolerant 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has no credible reason to still be there but unfortunately, she probably will recuse herself on that. Universities should have the right to keep out military recruiters because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Universities and colleges are not high schools so the law which requires them to allow military recruiters on campus or lose money is stupid.

Homophobia is intolerance which brings no benefit. President Obama is doing the correct thing by nominating Kagan to the Supreme Court because she belives in equality for LGBT people and not oppression against LGBT people. She knows that the intolerant 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has no credible reason to still be there but unfortunately, she probably will recuse herself on that. Universities should have the right to keep out military recruiters because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Universities and colleges are not high schools so the law which requires them to allow military recruiters on campus or lose money is stupid.